Strange

Maybe you just don't know enough about the processes involved? Do we? In what way? Hypothetically. In string theory. So maybe not. Not really. We evolved in the universe, so it appears to be a good fit. Fish evolved under water and must think it amazing (*) that the fluid carries water to their gills so effectively; almost as if it was designed for it. But we would drown in minutes. So the universe isn't designed for us; we are evolved for the tiny little bit of it that we can survive in (our puddle). (*) Obviously, like the puddle, they can't really think this. Define "elaborate". I am not convinced we are the most "elaborate" organism on Earth, never mind in the universe. There are plants with more genes than us. There are organisms with far more complicated life cycles. There are organisms with abilities we can only dream of. Sounds like you are looking for religious, rather than scientific, answers.

OK. Let me expand on that. Your questions, such as "what is mass" or "what is energy," could only be meaningful if those things could be defined in terms of something else. For example, "what is an omelette" can be answered in terms of eggs and other ingredients, prepared in a particular way. Even the question, "what is a proton" can be answered in terms of quarks, gluons, quantum chromodynamics, etc. But questions such as "what is an electron" and your questions cannot be answered in this way. These are (as far as we know) fundamental things. We can we can quantify them and describe them in terms of their interactions with other things. But they are what they are. So, again, I don't know what sort of answer you are looking for. I don't even know what sort of answer you could be looking for.

Yes. It will be the 110th anniversary of Einstein's annus mirabilis next year.

That's what I meant. I didn't want anyone to think that just continuing in a unchanging state of motion consumed energy.

I also wonder why barfbag finds these testimonies from people speaking outside their area of expertise so convincing and yet ignores all the scientists with relevant expertise who say it is bull.

Of course it wouldn't. The very best technologies are less than 50% efficient. Typical devices are less than 20%. This may be increased by a few percentage points if you increase the light levels by a factor of 100, but you will never get anywhere near 100%. And hydrino "theory" is very obviously a load of bull. It is still based on hydrinos so it still bollocks. Time won't change that. Making animations of ever more complicated perpetual motion machines to fool the punters won't change that. It is all bogus. End of story.

My pleasure.

No. We don't. Actually, we do. It's just you that doesn't exist. Bye.

Christ, that video is embarrassing. He is clearly being paid a lot to sound as if he is endorsing the technology but struggling not to say anything too stupid. Barfbag, the only thing he states unequivocally is that their calorimetry experiments are very accurate (although he doesn't quantify that). He fudges around the issue of how much energy is produced. He admits he has no idea what he is seeing. I assume this is pretty typical of your testimonials and why there is no point watching them. That is the problem with getting your information from videos and corporate press releases. It is far too easy to be vague but make exciting-sounding statements. If Mills published a scientific paper, he would not be able to get away with vague unquantified claims, mixing up power and energy, etc. And, of course, that is why none of his hogwash has been published in the scientific literature.

OK. That was the missing bit of information. I don't see why you think that is a problem. It happens. GPS receivers have to take it into account. I am not sure how the acceleration would be taken into account, but if we consider just the relative velocity, then they will both see the other's clocks running slow. (Person a is only travelling faster from some external frame of reference.)

Good move. This thread is like watching a multi-vehicle pileup in slow motion. Again. All of relative's threads go the same way.

"If it involves aether ..." How can something that doesn't exist be an explanation?

Partly because they are made up of different quarks (which each have different masses) and also because the binding energies are different. (Which is, I think, also why neutrons decay.)

OK. I wasn't sure.

What speeds are a and b moving at? What exactly do you think is impossible? Note that this might not be explainable using special relativity, because of the acceleration involved.

Only changes in motion require energy.

That would require the "block" to change over time. But time is part of the block. So you are suggesting some sort of meta-time outside of the time and space we are aware of. You might as well ask why the block universe doesn't move.

Note that only atoms with an even mass number (which, for complex reasons, is mainly atoms with both an even number of protons and an even number of neutrons) are bosons.

That is all irrelevant. His basic "science" is gibberish.

It defines the metric, or coordinate system; the way measurements would be made (if you had a ruler, except you don't have one because you have excluded matter). Points are a mathematical abstraction and can exist in an empty universe. Even in an empty universe, the spatial metric will expand over time (which is a bit surprising).

Relativity doesn't say anything like that. It defines the geometric background of time and distance. That says what? Here is a description of one "empty" universe model: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Milne_model

They are still the best description of space-time we currently have. If there is nothing in your universe, then you can't measure space either. Does that exist? Spacetime has four dimensions whether there is anything in it or not.

Where you were repeatedly shown to be wrong until you eventually just gave up... If it involves "aether" it is presumably bogus. They propose observations that could be made. How is that relevant?

They are assumed to be universal (if you mean "the same everywhere"). What does "fundamental" mean? Time is independent of the existence of matter or energy. There are several solutions to Einstein's Field Equations which describe an empty universe (which still consists of space and time). You may be confusing the ability to measure time which, arguably, requires change of some sort with the existence of time.

As usual, all you do is demonstrate how limited your reading is. So presumably you din't actually read the article in the OP. (Or, quite possibly based on past form, you just ignored the bits you don't like.)